Paper presented at the China-U.S. Joint Science Policy Seminar and published in Proceedings of the First Sino-US Science Policy Seminar (October 24-27, 1999), edited by Mu Rongping and W. A. Blanpied, Beijing, China: Science Press, 2000.

Opinion piece about UC’s experience with the elimination of race and ethnicity in admissions.

Statement on the College Board’s new test, which will be in accord with specifications developed by UC’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools.

The Role of the President of the University December 1997 The 1868 Organic Act proclaimed that the University of Califor- nia would be led by a “President of the several Faculties . . . [who would also be] the executive head of the institution in all its de- partments.” Despite this sweeping description of the president’s powers, the office carried academic but little administrative au- thority in the early days of the University. In 1890, for example, it took a special amendment to the Regents’ Bylaws to give the president authority “to employ, dismiss, and regulate the duties of janitors.” 1 As late as 1901, the Regents were still giving individual consideration to each request for replacement of a lost diploma. It was not until the administration of Benjamin Ide Wheeler (1899–1920) that the president truly became, in fact as well as in theory, the chief executive officer of the University. By the late 1950s, however, it was clear that the University had outgrown the ability of any one person to administer. The

When Jim Langley invited me to speak today, I agreed enthusiastically. CASE has established itself as the premier advancement organization in the world. I applaud you for recognizing that education is essential to virtually every good thing our society aspires to accomplish. And I congratulate you for your consistently outstanding service, not just to your individual institutions but to all of higher education.

The 2001 Robert H. Atwell Distinguished Lecture, delivered at the Eighty-third Annual Meeting of the American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., February 18, 2001.

A New World of Scholarly Communication November 2003 Higher-education leaders invariably have long lists of difficult issues to confront. These days, high on my list is the future of our university libraries. Although libraries form the basic infra- structure of the academic endeavor, I have come face to face with an unhappy fact: University librarians are now being forced to work with faculty members to choose more of the publications they can do without. The ballooning costs of academic publi- cations are preventing faculty members and researchers from gaining access to the world’s scholarship and knowledge. Even in the best of economic times, university libraries cannot hope to keep pace with the 6 to 12 percent annual inflation rate in the price of scholarly journals. And the fiscal environment today is particularly difficult—states are facing unprecedented budget crises just as expanding faculties and student bodies are increasing the demand for scholarly information. Neither

Farewell Remarks to the Board of Regents September 2003 Very shortly, I will be leaving the presidency of the University of California after eight years in office. It has been pointed out that I seem to have a knack for picking tumultuous times for my entrances and exits. When I took office as U.C.’s seven- teenth president in 1995, the University and much of the state were paralyzed by a bitter debate over affirmative action. As I prepare to leave on October 1, our state is consumed by a guber- natorial recall election that will feature a ballot with 135 candi- dates. California never is at a loss for interesting issues. As I reflect on my time as president and look to the future of the University, two major themes become apparent. First, the things that have been achieved at the University of California are nothing short of stunning. The U.C. system today is one of the world’s leading centers of higher learning, and its ac- complishments as a public university in the United States are

Address at the Symposium on Graduate Education in the Biological Sciences for the Twenty-first Century, University of California, San Francisco, October 2, 1996.

The highest-order function of the mind is as a theorist. The memory system accumulates information about the outside world. The mind’s theorist must sort through the information to formulate a theory about that world. The basic component of the system for theory building is a process called trolling. When the conscious mind is not being bombarded by external stimuli, or during certain stages of sleep, the mind’s theorist trolls through memory searching for traces that contain similar information. If several traces are identified, analysis may yield information that was not evident when each was examined individually; reification of this sort can add new information to memory. The trolling process, and its ability to form new memory traces in the absence of external stimulation, is key to understanding many psychological phenomena.

Although a stunning success in many ways, California’s 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education has been a conspicuous failure in one respect: California ranks near the bottom of the states in the proportion of its college-age population that attains a baccalaureate degree. California’s poor record of B.A. attainment is an unforeseen consequence of the Master Plan’s restrictions on admission to 4-year baccalaureate institutions, limiting eligibility for the University of California and the state colleges (later the California State University) to the top eighth and top third, respectively, of the state’s high school graduates. As a result, 2-year institutions have absorbed the vast majority of enrollment growth in California higher education since 1960, but 4-year enrollments have not kept pace. California now ranks last among the states in the proportion of its college students who attend a 4-year campus. The state’s low rate of baccalaureate attainment is sometimes blamed on the failure of community colleges to produce more transfers, but comparison of higher education systems in other states reveals a more fundamental problem: California’s 4-year sector is simply too small in relation to the size of its college-age population. The state urgently needs to expand 4-year enrollment capacity in order to improve baccalaureate attainment among the new, more diverse generation of Californians now reaching college age. Yet building expensive new 4-year campuses is an unlikely option given the state’s fiscal outlook. The alternative is to restructure California’s existing postsecondary system.

Randomized trials, although a promising approach, reflect impacts of only a limited subset of highly sought-after schools.

Although a stunning success in many ways, California’s 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education has been a conspicuous failure in one respect: California ranks near the bottom of the states in the proportion of its college-age population that attains a baccalaureate degree. California’s poor record of B.A. attainment is an unforeseen consequence of the Master Plan’s restrictions on access to 4-year baccalaureate institutions. In a cost-cutting move, the framers of the Master Plan restricted eligibility for admission to the University of California and the state colleges (later the California State University) to the top eighth and top third, respectively, of the state’s high school graduates. As a result, 2-year institutions have absorbed the vast majority of enrollment growth in California higher education. In addition to their important role in vocational education, the California Community Colleges now enroll between 40% and 50% of all students seeking a B.A., including those at both 2-year and 4-year institutions. Enrollment at 4-year institutions, however, has not kept pace. California now ranks last among the states in the proportion of its college students that attend a 4-year institution. The paper presents comparative data demonstrating the powerful relationship between 4-year college enrollment and B.A. attainment across the 50 states. Although California’s low rate of baccalaureate attainment is sometimes blamed on the failure of community colleges to produce more transfers, the data point to a more fundamental problem -- lack of 4-year baccalaureate enrollment capacity. The single most critical factor for California to improve B.A. attainment is to expand 4-year enrollment capacity. Yet building expensive new 4-year campuses is an unlikely option given the state’s current and foreseeable fiscal circumstances. The alternative is to restructure California’s existing postsecondary system. The paper reviews a variety of baccalaureate reform models that have been introduced in other states. The most promising of these models involve collaborations between community colleges and state universities to create new kinds of intermediary, “hybrid” institutions. Examples include university centers and 2-year university branch campuses. Under the university center model, 4-year universities offer upper-division coursework at community college campuses, enabling “place bound” students to complete their baccalaureate degree program there. Under the 2-year university branch model, some community colleges are converted, in effect, into lower-division satellites of state universities, thereby expanding capacity at the 4-year level and eliminating the need for the traditional transfer process. What these and other hybrid models have in common is that they help bridge the divide between 2-year and 4-year institutions, enabling more students to enter baccalaureate programs directly from high school and progress seamlessly to their degrees. Amending the Master Plan in the manner proposed here need not alter its essential features. While preserving the distinctive missions of UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges, the need now is to build their capacity to work together as a system to improve baccalaureate attainment – the one mission that all three segments share.

The current and still-evolving role of the American research university has been shaped by four key developments in the past sixty-five years: the historic decision to establish a comprehensive postwar federal science policy, described in Vannevar Bush’s 1945 report, Science, The Endless Frontier; the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980; economic analyses from the 1950s onward that have validated the central role of knowledge in economic growth and influenced government and university policy on industry-university research; and various experiments with such research that have led to an increasing integration of research universities and industrial partners in the pursuit of innovation. Can American research universities continue to meet intensifying demands for innovation that advances regional, state, and national economic growth? This paper answers the question with a conditional yes. It describes the trend toward closer relations between universities and industry and how this trend is encouraging new ways of conducting scientific research and new forms of organization within the research university. It concludes with several recommendations for preserving the competitive advantage research universities contribute to American economic leadership: correcting our underinvestment in research in certain disciplines, such as the physical and social sciences; ensuring that federal support for research is sufficient to train graduate students in the numbers needed for national economic competitiveness and to encourage young faculty to pursue research projects with potential for innovative breakthroughs; and to make it easier for foreign-born students to remain in this country once they have earned advanced degrees in American universities.

The authors consider why more than 40% of the students who enter U.S. four-year colleges fail to graduate and what can be done to reduce that number.

The College Boards started as achievement tests designed to measure students’ mastery of college preparatory subjects. Admissions testing has significantly changed since then with the introduction of the Scholastic Aptitude Test, Lindquist’s creation of the ACT, renewed interest in subject-specific assessments, and current efforts to adapt K–12 standards-based tests for use in college admissions. We have come full circle to a renewed appreciation for the value of achievement tests. Curriculum-based achievement tests are more valid indicators of college readiness than other tests and have important incentive or signaling effects for K–12 schools as well: They help reinforce a rigorous academic curriculum and create better alignment of teaching, learning, and assessment along the pathway from high school to college.

The authors consider why more than 40% of the students who enter U.S. four-year colleges fail to graduate and what can be done to reduce that number. The authors consider why more than 40% of the students who enter US four-year colleges fail to graduate and what can be done to reduce that number.